American politics

Gun control

The gun control that works: no guns

I HESITATE to offer thoughts about the school shooting in Connecticut that has seen 20 children and seven adults murdered and the gunman also dead. Your correspondent has been in the rural Midwest researching a column and heard the news on the car radio. Along with a sense of gloom, I found I mostly wanted to see my own, elementary-school-age children back home in Washington, DC, and had little desire to listen to pundits of any stripe: hence my reluctance to weigh in now.

To be fair, on NPR, the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne had sensible things to say about President Barack Obama’s statement on the killings, and how it was probably significant when the president seemed to suggest that he was minded to take action on gun control, and never mind the politics. On the same show the moderate conservative columnist, David Brooks, expressed sensible caution about assuming that stricter gun controls could have stopped this particular shooting.

Switching to red-blooded conservative talk radio, I found two hosts offering a “move along, nothing to see here” defence of the status quo. One suggested that listeners should not torment themselves trying to understand “craziness”, though it would, the pair agreed, be understandable if some parents were tempted to remove their children from public education and homeschool them.

To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.

Here is my small thought. It is quite possible, perhaps probable, that stricter gun laws of the sort that Mr Obama may or may not be planning, would not have stopped the horrible killings of this morning. But that is a separate question from whether it is a good idea to allow private individuals to own guns. And that, really, is what I think I understand by gun control. Once you have guns in circulation, in significant numbers, I suspect that specific controls on things like automatic weapons or large magazines can have only marginal effects. Once lots of other people have guns, it becomes rational for you to want your own too.

The first time that I was posted to Washington, DC some years ago, the capital and suburbs endured a frightening few days at the hands of a pair of snipers, who took to killing people at random from a shooting position they had established in the boot of a car. I remember meeting a couple of White House correspondents from American papers, and hearing one say: but the strange thing is that Maryland (where most of the killings were taking place) has really strict gun laws. And I remember thinking: from the British perspective, those aren’t strict gun laws. Strict laws involve having no guns.

After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.

Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter’s pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.

I am willing to believe that some householders, in some cases, have defended their families from attack because they have been armed. But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person. And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost none—is on balance safer.

As for the National Rifle Association bumper stickers arguing that only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny, I wonder if that isn’t a form of narcissism, involving the belief that lone, heroic individuals will have the ability to identify tyranny as it descends, recognise it for what it is, and fight back. There is also the small matter that I don’t think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule.

Nor is it the case that the British are relaxed about being subjects of a monarch, or are less fussed about freedoms. A conservative law professor was recently quoted in the papers saying he did not want to live in a country where the police were armed and the citizens not. I fear in Britain, at least, native gun-distrust goes even deeper than that: the British don’t even like their police to be armed (though more of them are than in the past).

But here is the thing. The American gun debate takes place in America, not Britain or Japan. And banning all guns is not about to happen (and good luck collecting all 300m guns currently in circulation, should such a law be passed). It would also not be democratic. I personally dislike guns. I think the private ownership of guns is a tragic mistake. But a majority of Americans disagree with me, some of them very strongly. And at a certain point, when very large majorities disagree with you, a bit of deference is in order.

So in short I am not sure that tinkering with gun control will stop horrible massacres like today’s. And I am pretty sure that the sort of gun control that would work—banning all guns—is not going to happen. So I have a feeling that even a more courageous debate than has been heard for some time, with Mr Obama proposing gun-control laws that would have been unthinkable in his first term, will not change very much at all. Hence the gloom.

This is really correct - armed police are not much good at protecting people and regularly shoot unarmed, and even innocent people, not because they mean ill but because it is hard to be right.

At the root of this is a faulty public perception, held by many even in the UK, that if the bad guy has a gun you will be safer if you have one too. I a pretty sure that studies show that this is not the case, and that an armed policeman is more, not less, likely to be hurt when facing an armed baddie. This may be based on 'obviousness' (like the lump of labour fallacy) or on too many fantastical movies. In any case we need to scotch some of these ideas - how about an 'Office for Accurate Public Perception'?

It's insane that in the US we treat gun ownership as a rights issue. It is clearly a public health and safety issue. The question should not be 'do we have the right to own a gun', but 'does the ownership of guns make for a safer society'.

Yes, I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making, it far past time to step back and decide whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost.

Thank you for your thoughtful deference. Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776. The American republic is still very much an "experiment" worth keeping an eye out for tyranny. Consider the Patriot Act. That being said, the founding fathers were quite clear that the 2nd Amendment has limitations, and rightly so. Rational change will come -- decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government. And that's as it should be.

If our armed forces can't deter 1.3 billion Chinese from invading us, then surely some gun-carrying kids can't do this either. Chinese tanks will roll over you (YOU with your semiautomatic gun in your hand, LOL) - as they did on Tiananmen Square in 1989 with their own people.

Don't try to sound smart. It rather comes across as 'naive . . . and that's putting it mildly.

The US has in one year by far the highest gun-related death toll per 100,000 population compared to all developed countries. Only the 'advanced' countries El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Colombia, Panama, Brazil and Mexico have a worse gun-related death toll per 100,000.

Re: “The gun control that works”:
The writer of this article, Mr. Lexington, is so far the only Brit who understands why a gun ban in the US would NEVER happen, Set aside issues outlined in Article 5 of the US Constitution; he understands US political demographics & basic differences between the US & the UK. But to emphasize one of his points with a minor correction: Yes. There are now 320 MILLION “Registered” guns in the US. However, additionally there are also an estimated 300+ MILLION Unregistered guns. Who so many unregistered? Lets take handguns first. Many are transferred illegally: Many are inherited. (I own 5 such handguns). Many were purchased Prior to the 1968 Fed Gun Control act & thus unregistered. (I own 3 such handguns). Finally: Rifles & shotguns. These need not be registered. So: How to deal with the following FACTS: There are now over HALF BILLION guns in the US. Over 90 MILLION gun owners: (an average of 6 guns / owner). 1 in 3 homes has a gun, or aprox 5 guns per household. Obviously some homes & individuals have a LOT than indicated by these averages. I personally own, (I think), about 37 guns. But I may have lost count. So, the so called “problem” isn’t just that the US is AWASH with guns, that we really like guns & are absolutely unwilling to give them up, ever if ordered to do so under penalty of criminal prosecution. The basic problem is, you can’t “get the toothpaste back into the tube”. HALF BILLION guns wont be legislated out of existence in our lifetime. And I doubt we’ll see it happen even in the lifetime of our Great Grandchildren. FACT: Unlike the UK or Japan, guns have been a part of our culture since our founding. In fact, it was a gun issue that caused a certain unpleasantness between the Colonists & the UK when 700 British troops attempted to confiscate weapons stored in Concord MA. That attempt turned out rather poorly for the British. The point is, though we are a former British colony, that’s where similarities end. Our temperament is significantly different. So any attempt to compare our society with the UK lack validity. Yes. We have significantly higher incidence of gun violence compared to the UK. And this difference existed before guns were banned in the UK & before sever gun restrictions were implemented in the US in 1968. Bottom line: Such differences will NOT be legislated away. Our temperament is different. Our laws are different. Our Governmental structure is different. One of the prices we pay for these differences is the disparity in gun violence. And although occasionally some die as result of these differences, as an Armed US citizen, I will take my chances by choosing to live with them.

The police primarily exist to collect evidence and write reports after a crime has been committed. Rarely are they in the position to prevent a crime. We are on our own and need the means to defend ourselves.

Fizboz Writes: {“It's insane that in US we treat gun ownership as rights issue. Its clearly a public health & safety issue. The question should not be 'do we have right to own guns', but 'does ownership make for safer society'. I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition, privileges & freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they ‘re of our own making, its far past time to decide whether privilege of gun ownership is worth the horrible cost.”}

Obviously Fizboz feels this Right is NOT worth the cost. Lets set aside the fact that the Constitution, (contrary to popular belief & yours as well), did NOT bestow this Right. And gun ownership is NOT a “privilege” as he implies. Nor is this a “Right of our own making”. The 2nd Amd CONFIRMED gun ownership as a PREXISTING RIGHT, stating; it “shall NOT BE INFRINGED”. As it pre-existed the Bill of Rights, it is by definition, NOT of our own making. Perhaps this seems to be picking “Legal Nits”. Sorry, but I’m an attorney & these “nits” are significant. But that said; Fizboz would obviously change the Constitution. So, with reference to Article 5; (suggest he read it & hopefully understand political demographics of the US), how does he propose to affect such a change? I’m sure many readers here would like to know. Perhaps he has ideas not yet considered.

Not only this last 'proclamation' of the NRA reminds us of the methods of the NSDAP. I wrote Dec 24th, 06.12:

The Nazis came not least to power because they formed exactly what a functioning democracy doesn't need: an armed paramilitary organization outside the structures of the state (called SA), directed at first against their critics and political opponents, then - eventually - against the soft tissue of a weakened democratic system itself - the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic.

The SA (also known as 'Brownshirts') was formed in 1921 (12 years before the Nazis' seizure of dictatorial power in Germany). In its beginning it was the NSSDAP's and Adolf Hitler’s own private paramilitary ‘army’. The SS was formed later, in April 1925 (8 years before the Nazis usurped the power in the country). At first the SS was a mere section of the SA; it functioned as a personal bodyguard troop for the Nazi leader. By these paramilitary means the Nazis were able to build slowly a well-fortified ‘state within the state’, intimidating any opposition, suppressing the 'free speech' of critics and honeycombing the Weimar democratic state and the state's security institutions.

Also these Nazi paramilitary groups claimed to “protect the country” against 'thugs' (which solely they defined), similar to NRA. Everybody criticizing their paramilitary organizations was called “un-Deutsch “ (un-German) . . . in a similar way as some rightwing Americans call critics of the NRA “un-American”.

The Nazis were racist; so is a bigger part of the NRA: Detroit Free Press Magazine cited NRA board member Ted Nugent: “Blacks still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, wipe their butts with their hands. You give 'em toothpaste, they fucking eat it!"

Friends of mine who attended a NRA conference in St. Louis with over 73,700 attendees noticed only twelve (12) persons in attendance at that conference who could be considered 'kind of black’ (African Americans). They might have missed a few but not many. Some blacks on blogs claim that their local NRA offices discourage blacks from becoming NRA members ... or already-members become discouraged and leave.

Thus, in many ways the NRA resembles the Nazis' early paramilitary organization.

Well reasoned! .... May I add to your, "Our temperament is significantly different" --that our temperament to tyranny is significantly different to the U.K.'s and other European's.

Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact, a British effort to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Massachusetts that sparked the initial skirmish. ... Wherever authoritarian regimes are established, they take away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the state.

America's Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press, and the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

The greatest delusion is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.

In the long run guns DO make us safer. That there are too many guns in circulation and not enough effective restrictions on who can own one is a problem, but that doesn't mean that American citizens should not be armed. And it's not about "identifying tyranny" within our government, it's about protecting ourselves from another government. It's naive to think that because America has never been invaded that it can never happen. When the entire world agrees not to use nuclear weapons, a country's tactical advantage lies in its economic power and military-age population, and in terms of the United States the former is quickly dwindling. I don't know about you all, but I sleep a lot better knowing that 300 million Americans are armed and ready to kill any f*cking Chinese or North Korean army that ever tries to set foot in our country. 12,000 annual deaths is NOTHING compared to the toils of real war and genocide. And to those who would call this line of thinking paranoid, it was LESS THAN 70 YEARS AGO that America faced the threat of annihilation from foreign invaders. Call me crazy, but 70 years of peace should not lull us into a false sense of security.

I, having lived in both the UK and Australia, can tell you quite firmly that your statistics are totally bogus. Home intrusions (otherwise called burglaries) rise and fall according to the percentage of unemployed young males in the population, not according to gun ownership - especially as neither the UK nor Australia ever, at any time, permitted the general public to possess firearms. Your reasoning is specious and frankly an insult to every dead child who has been killed by some loony with an easy-to-obtain firearm.

America loves its guns. Do you know why? Not for protection (it is rarely used for that).

See, for every gun death, there are probabaly 100's of cases where the gun was brandished for the only purpose of being a BIG MAN with a gun.

America won't give up its guns, because it is like their penis; their whole self-image is wrapped up in it, and it needs its periodic violent release to feel alive. (Nothing makes a man more alive than killing, eh?)

What you say may be in part correct but it is a simplification of the facts.
Australia was founded in part as Britain was prevented from shipping convicts to what had become the US following the War of Independence. According to Wikipedia the number of convicts sent to the North American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was in the order of 50,000 (compared with about 150,000 sent to the Australian colonies from 1788 to the mid-19th century). Ex-convicts, and later Irish and Scottish settlers forced from the land at home, contributed to the long history of Australians opposing authority. As a British born Australian I notice the difference in respect for, and deference to authority whenever I travel to the UK compared with what I see in Australia.
Australia, as with the US has large areas of national parks and otherwise unoccupied land which has lead to a significant number of people desiring to hunt native and feral animals with guns. Britain on the other hand has much smaller, mostly private estates where hunting is permitted. This means that whereas hunting in Britain is essentially the preserve of the aristocracy, their hangers on and new money, hunting in Australia and the US is something anyone can do if they wish to. While I have no desire to hunt I accept it as a legitimate activity and acceptable use of guns.
Australian politicians therefore have to contend and balance the 'larrakinism' of many Australians, the legitimate use of guns for hunting and the safety of the wider population. Aside from hunting there is no need for anyone to carry a gun; in Australia, in the US or elsewhere.
It is ludicrous to believe that armed individuals are more effective at defending the nation than the professional armed forces and it is arguable whether most individuals could actually defend themselves (I am sure some can but suspect that guns probably boost confidence in the ability to do so more than in fact).
Another difference is that while there is some lobbying from the gun suppliers it is nothing like as effective as the NRA, which as far as I can see appears to be holding US politicians to hostage.
There is much to admire in America but the attitude to guns and the clinging to outdated notions of national defence are at odds with almost every other western country, however, that is America's choice and as I said in my initial comment it is Americans that must live with the consequences.

It is my RIGHT to own and carry my guns. I'd love to know which country you're from. Banning guns WOULD leave law abiding citizens, like myself, defenseless against criminals. One morning my husband left for work around 5 am. I was awoken by a stranger with intentions of rape. My husband had a gun hidden on bed that wasn't visible. The rapist got comfortable and put his weapon to rest. When the opportunity presented itself, I took my chance and fortunately, it worked out in my advantage. Had this GUN not had been there, I'd probably be dead. I know I was fortunate and thank GOD everyday for MY RIGHT TO BARE ARMS , and of course my husband for teaching me the importance of knowing how to properly, and quickly, handle my firearm. Banning or controlling firearms will not fix the problem. Adopting the UN gun laws will in the end, make matters worse. I believe your crime rate statistics rue a bit distorted. UK gun violence has risen 89% over the past ten years! In as few as nine short years, gun violence in Lancashire has increased by 598%! In those same few short years, murders caused by firearms has risen by 104%. Police in London have started doing street patrols with MACHINE GUNS. Only four countries in the UK have reported a decrease in gun violence. As far as the US goes, white people own more guns, yet black people kill more people with guns. No, this is not racism. It is fact. A fact initially spoken and confirmed by a black man. In 1976 Washington DC ruled all personal weapons must be kept unloaded and inoperable. In 2008, Supreme Court ruled Washington's trigger-lock law as unconstitutional. The murder rate in Washington DC averaged 73% higher while this law was in effect than it was in 2008 when the law was ruled unconstitutional. Half of you will disagree, and that's OK. Ignorance is bliss.

Most mass murderers are mentally ill, disturbed or remote. In most cases there are clues and signs of a potential threat. VA Tech mass murderer had his 'plan' mapped out a left in public for WEEKS. There were many indications that he was a threat to himself and/or others but university officials did not take the appropriate actions. Those officials could've potentially prevented the incident, yet we blame the weapons he used? That young man cried out for help and no one would listen.

One of the main arguments presented against banning guns seems to be that it would leave the "law-abiding citizens" defenseless against criminals who would then know they could not be confronted and would have a field day. Living as I do in a country where guns are banned, I haven't seen that happen. And I don't think it happens either in the countries where gun ownership is banned or severely restricted. And I don't think people are more concerned about a break-in in these countries than those in the US (in fact, I've seen the opposite). Crime rates in these countries would also be much higher, while it seems that the opposite is the case. I wonder how this would be explained by pro-gun debaters.
I don't see either how can one say that people are born with the right to have firearms. I agree that people should only be limited in their freedom in as much as is necessary to life in a free society. But making the possession of a particular type of weapon (following that logic, why don't people have also the right to have nuclear weapons?) a fundamental right seems odd. Where does this right come from? Who decides what is a right and what is not? I think we all do -together- as a society, and it's not something that exists by itself (and much less is endowned by a creator).
I'd also like to add that resorting to whatever the "founding fathers" thought or intended seems a very weak argument. They are revered with religious zeal by many in the US, but they were politicians just like today's, and had no idea about what the future would hold (and likely their knowledge of history or political science was even more limited than that of today's politicians). And their morals were very different from today's: they saw little problem having slaves, for example. So their thoughts and intentions are not very relevant today. I understand that this comment is sacrilegious in the US, but I think it's good to put it explicitly on the table. This doesn't pretend to demean the US constitution, which certainly has many positive things, but to desacralize it and its contents, and to conclude that the second amendment is not really that relevant for this case. It could be wrong.

But the author said that " In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008." Is it not the fact?

We could go further: Each registered gun has to have an - even at some distance - clearly visible tax-tag 'fixed' to it, similar to a license plate sticker, containing a personalized number.

This number has to enter a national data-base which is accessible to the Federal Internal Revenue Service and to all law enforcement offices (even from patrol cars).

The unauthorized 'carry about' of such gun will result in two felonies: A tax violation and a criminal gun-law violation.

Thus, not only the carrier of such weapons will be punished by law, also the person on whose name the gun is registered: For 'acting negligently'.

The latter will not only have his gun license revoked and will have to re-margin taxes, backdated, for the 'multiple-use' of a single-use license, but he/she also will face criminal charges for a 'reckless behaviour" which can result in the death of innocent people.